Sat Sep 10 08:28:03 EDT 2005 rsc I put this in in spirit, but I disagree with your rationale. First, you already had this: you can say "no" or "uriel" to the prompts asking about vgasize, monitor, and mouseport, and then it won't start the graphics. Second, this change by itself will do nothing to make the install use less memory. The images are kept in the kernel, and the kernel memory is set aside at boot time. So it might make a difference in a VM, but on a real hw PC, unless you also set kernelpercent, you're not saving any memory. Third, if you don't have memory to put a few windows on the screen, I see no reason to believe that things will improve in the future. Are you going to be running Plan 9 in text mode forever? Fourth, and this is the real problem, I see no evidence that the graphics in the install are taking up the bulk of the memory footprint. I just booted an install CD, let it start fossil and mount the CD, and then ran ps. I also poked around in the kernel data structures with acid. Here's what I found in user space: total in use: 4794 pages = 19176kB 4888k - ram file system holding install file system 1024k - rio 564k - dossrv 9156k - fossil 2224k - 9660srv ------ 17854k That leaves 1322k for the install programs themselves. The fossil footprint varies with the amount of memory available to user space. The rest are pretty much fixed. In the kernel, on a 640x480x8 screen with a handful of extra windows beyond the usual install windows, I'm using 800kB for graphics memory. Since there's no overlap the total memory needed for a regular install won't be any more than a full screen. If you're running 1024x768x32 that's under 3MB. Compare that to the 10MB base user space install footprint plus whatever fossil uses. Cutting to 1024x768x8 gets you under 1MB for the graphics, and is not nearly as crippled as running the entire install in text mode. I sure wish you guys would think these things through before jumping to conclusions. Russ